Committee Staff note on e-Consultation
with young engineers
The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills
Committee set up a web forum to find out what young engineers
thought about engineering as a profession and to find out why
they went, or are thinking of going, into engineering. The web
forum ran for six weeks from 28 October and closed on 9 December
2008. The forum asked for views on four topics and each received
a substantial number of replies (or posts) and each topic was
viewed over a thousand times and in one case over two thousand
times.
|
| Topic | Posts
| Views |
|
| 1. What would you do to improve engineering in the UK?
| 52 | 1,823
|
| 2. Has your education prepared you for engineering?
| 36 | 1,273
|
| 3. Is engineering a good career choice?
| 50 | 2,160
|
| 4. What or who inspired you to consider engineering as a career?
| 31 | 1,097
|
|
This has been the most successful e-consultation carried
out by the Committee. Moderators found the consultation easy to
manage with a steady stream of postings and only a handful of
posts rejected-obscene usernames, promotion of organisations'
activities and inclusion of personal information identifying the
person posting (though in the latter case posts were usually accepted
with small excisions).
Because the e-forum invited views from young people arrangements
were put in place to ensure that the identity of those under 18
was fully protected. In the event this proved largely unnecessary
as, from the internal evidence in the posts, two under 18s posted.
(This of itself could be evidence that those under 18 are unaware
of the possibility of pursuing engineering as a career.) From
the same evidence it appears that the bulk of those posting were
in their 20s.
When considering another e-forum the Committee may like to
examine ways of promoting the forum. Although respondents were
not asked to comment on how they found out about the forum, there
were no indications that the launch event in the Lambeth Academy,
the flyers distributed by Members and to school parties visiting
the Palace of Westminster or electronic links through other organisations
generated the posts.
1. What would you do to improve engineering in the UK?
Respondents identified three issues that needed to be addressed:
first, attracting young people to engineering; second, the training
provided to engineers, which is examined at topic 2; and, third,
retaining those who train as engineers in the profession.
There was criticism of the quality of mathematics and science
teachers in schools. Several respondents criticised careers advice
in schools pointing out that schools preferred to encourage young
people-especially the most able-to study pure science rather than
engineering. One respondent suggested that this was in part because
of "the prestige element" but mainly because there has
been insufficient effort on the part of professional and governmental
organisations to inform careers advisors about the possibility.
He added that this was compounded by the increasing burden of
student debt, and the likelihood of an MEng being a four year
degree, which put young people off choosing to study engineering.
Another respondent pointed out that schools were unaware
of engineering scholarships, opportunities to do A-Levels at engineering
schools and "Year in Industry" schemes, which allowed
individuals to work at an engineering firm for a year before going
to university, "giving the individual some experience in
the field and the opportunity to make some money to pay for University,
even the possibility of some sponsorship". Several respondents
suggested that schools needed to persuade engineers in industry
to come into schools to "hold `fun', hands-on engineering
and science" days.
One respondent explained: It would be helpful if we could
attract pupils to evening events organised by the various institutions.
It seems almost impossible to get teachers to bring pupils to
any event not directly related to the national curriculum. It
ought to be part of their wider education. It would be especially
sensible for it to be part of the new diploma courses.
One under 18-year-old commented that his school had new equipment
and machinery and he considered that the Government "could
help some schools by giving them some machinery to work with so
they could build more different things which they couldn't before".
Respondents suggested that the engineering institutions and
universities needed to merge to form a collaborative team to promote
engineering and that too often attempts to promote engineering
were dissipated if only one aspect was being promoted.
A student commented: Since I have started university, I
have been devastated about how much effort and hot air is wasted
attempting to run engineering promotion and the lack of attempts
made to show what Maths and science can get you to do.
Engineering needs to be repackaged for joe the plumber and
when that is done, we will be in a much better position. Much
of this can be achieved by the institutions and not government
legislation. It's just support (and some money) that will get
this going.
Another respondent argued that the professional engineering
institutions needed reform and to amalgamate, and suggested that
they acted like "like old boys' networks, rather than representing
and upholding the profession as a whole".
On retention, the point was made that a degree provided only
part of the training necessary to become an engineer and that
a fully-formed engineer needed practical experience before he
or she had was fully qualified. Although salaries appeared generous
they failed to take account of the volume of work required to
become an engineer.
One student commented: The salary is really not equal to
the work you put in during your degree, and this adds to the [...]
problem. A pertinent example would be at my university (Bath).
The 55 Civil Engineers in my year, can expect on average to start
on something around £26-30k if they achieve a 2:1 or 1st,
but below that the wages drop closer to £20,000. For a BBA
(Bachelors of business and administration) the starting wage for
that same 1st or 2:1 student could well be the same, despite having
done a far easier degree both time-wise and syllabus wise. In
addition after five years their projected salary will be far greater
than the equivalent civil engineer, again, despite the difference
in difficulty of the degree. The trend continues throughout the
careers, with engineers earning less. Why should I do engineering
if this is the case?
One Chartered Engineer said that career progression was though
management. He explained that of his degree peers that he had
kept in touch with approximately 30% were still in engineering.
He said that half the people who were not engineers any longer
were in "management", mainly because they could work
up the career path to higher wages faster in management.
A theme running through this topic (and others) was whether
the title engineer had been devalued since the 19th century and
whether it should require accreditation-for example, as chartered
engineers by recognised institutions-and be legally protected.
Such a step was seen as enhancing the status of engineers. The
suggestion was made that companies should, as a first step, be
encouraged only to employ registered engineers at a senior engineering
level by, for example, publicising the commercial or legal advantages.
Eventually this could become mandatory and the UK could have a
fully regulated profession.
One respondent explained: I am not bothered about salary,
prestige, education, whether or not I am arrogant, equal to a
doctor or a lawyer.
Just copy the system they have in Germany, and many others
for that matter, for their engineer's accreditation-that will
do. The rest will follow.
A contrary view-apparently from a journalist covering science
for 40 years-saw the argument about "label" and status"
as a distraction. He argued as follows:
A better solution [...] would be for engineers to stop
whining and to celebrate their subject in public. Point out to
young people the engineers are the ones who will solve the problems
of climate change and energy shortages. Remind them that engineers
created their iPods and the football stadiums they love to visit.
Oh, and add that engineers are pretty well paid, despite the whingeing
letters that occasional sneak into the newspapers.
For that to happen, engineers have to become better communicators.
Don't leave it to the particular physicists to claim the glory
from the Large Hadron Collider. Learn how to talk to ordinary
people, and not just fellow engineers.
There has been a revolution in science communication over the
past 20 years. Sadly, the engineers have missed the boat, perhaps
because their institutions are too busy competing with one another
when they should be collaborating on this important aspect of
their profession.
Finally, one respondent suggested that the Government should
appoint a "Chief Engineer" along similar lines to the
"Chief Scientist", who would be responsible for advising
on technical issues such as infrastructure investment and flood
management and also for promoting the profession amongst politicians
and the public. Another commented on the absence in the UK of
a centre from engineering excellence.
2. Has your education prepared you for engineering?
Many respondents made the point that academic courses were
an essential part of engineering education to provide the theoretical
"tools to solve engineering problems". But the qualification
was made frequently that theory had to be tempered with practical
experience. One respondent pointed out that, although he was excellent
at maths and could pass examinations, this did not "prepare
you for the real world application of engineering science".
Contracting engineers considered that many designers had no appreciation
of the practicalities and problems faced during construction and
that the way degree programs were taught prepared engineers for
consultancy design work but not contracting. Several advocated
compulsory industry experience as part of a degree course, particularly,
"on-site `in the rain and mud' experience".
Two posts illustrate the contrasting views:
(A) I am [...] studying Electrical and Electronic Engineering
[and] I think that it is far too theoretical. I am currently on
a one year placement and I have found that from the two years
I have spent at University most of it is irrelevant to industry.
Mathematically I am well prepared but the university creates no
awareness of industry. I have spoken to many other graduates where
I work and elsewhere, including some who have a PhD and have been
working in industry for nearly 20 years, and they all said that
what they where taught at university was nearly all useless and
they have not used most of what they studied in all the years
they have been in industry. I think that the teachers have no
idea what industry is about, or if they do they do not give the
students an appreciation of what is involved. Overall I think
that graduates are ill prepared for work in industry.
(B) If you are involved in the creation of new ideas, new
ways of doing things, and are going to be doing demanding engineering,
an academic degree is a necessity. You need the theory as a basis
for doing new things. Those who say they forget it all within
a few weeks of graduating aren't in a job that requires it, but
many people are. If you're not involved in development, then perhaps
an academic degree is more inappropriate. The problem is; how
do people know this when they make educational and career choices?
Some have entered engineering through apprenticeships-in
some cases, because of concerns about the cost of courses and
building up debt-and a number of those who entered via a degree
considered that it to a significant extent irrelevant and that
a placement or apprenticeship, BTEC National Certificate or an
NVQ level 3, would have been better. It was noted that the status
of apprenticeships was improving. One post mentioned that the
Engineering Diploma positively and pointed out that "we need
a broad range of skills from Engineers-both hands on and analytical
and management based"-and considered that once the Diploma
was fully established there would be a "full compliment of
routes available to create a strong Engineering Industry".
A few commented on the subjects taught at schools. One chemical
engineer, having worked in industry for several years and currently
in a role bridging the public sector to industry, considered that
he would have obtained more value doing a "Double Science"
A-level (if it existed) because of the opportunities arising in
industry were frequently "in cross-sector areas". Others
commented that the mathematics and science subjects needed to
have a greater engineering flavour to encourage young people to
consider engineering. But one respondent warned against "clogging
up secondary schools with fads" and said that having "advanced
knowledge of electronics or computer programming is nice if you
went to a good school, but not a necessity".
Some found shortcomings with the teaching of engineering
in higher education institutions. Lecturers lacked experience
of industry and many were interested in research rather than teaching.
Several pointed out that an engineering degree needed to provide
a wider range of skills-for example, communications and project
management-to ensure graduates had a successful career.
A mechanical engineer with a degree commented: I found
my degree to be severely lacking in the teaching of communications
skills, something most engineers will need to work on if they
want to succeed in industry. It was also very short on applying
the theory to real engineering problems. Finally, it taught very
little about the various sectors of engineering and hence I had
to start from absolute grass roots basics when I started my role
in the industry I am now a part of.
3. Is engineering a good career choice?
Opinions were divided but the preponderant view was that
pay and conditions were reasonable and the work satisfying. Some
questioned, however, whether the level of remuneration adequately
matched the training and skills required to become an engineer
and some pointed out that increases in salary could only be achieved
by moving company. The view was expressed that smaller companies
offered "relatively few opportunities to graduates, particularly
the experience and mentoring to become chartered" engineers.
Several commented on travel: for a few a drawback but for many
an opportunity, and as one respondent commented, "With experience
and qualifications you can work anywhere in the world".
As to the future, there was some feeling that engineers in
older traditional industries such as manufacturing may face redundancy
as jobs moved to low wage economies overseas but others pointed
out that civil engineering projects in the UK could not relocate-though
there was a risk that skills' shortages would be filled from overseas-but
there was some apprehension that after the Olympics and Crossrail
had been completed there would a surplus of engineers. But many
saw opportunities for engineers in new areas such as low carbon
technologies and there was a strong vein of optimism that only
engineers could provide solutions to the challenges of the 21st
century.
One respondent explained: For me engineering was the ONLY
career choice.
However it has bought me numerous job changes through redundancies,
project closure, take-overs, lousy management, and the list goes
on and on.
I have had to go back to university for a harder hitting qualification
in the job market-which has worked. It has also bought me: International
travel-23 countries; speaking at conferences; and asked to lecture
to young students on a career in engineering.
I see friends working in finance/accountancy permanently bored
out of their minds, others working in IT seeing their salaries
and contract rates slashed [...].
With the demand for greener technologies, change in transportation,
vast quantities of new power stations of one description or another
and the demise of oil-it can only get better.
Management emerged as a two-sided issue. Some considered
that companies failed to manger or appreciate engineers adequately,
often treating them as "technicians" and below other
professions requiring essentially the same skills and expertise
such as architects. While some engineers recognised that taking
on management responsibility was a route to promotion, many wanted
to keep hands-on experience and one wanted "career structures
that enable their best talent to progress in a technical role".
A new entrant to engineering commented that "my best chance
for career progression is to go into a non-engineering, management
role".
One respondent explained: Many people don't want to be
managers. Indeed there is a body of management literature out
there that identifies many engineers hitting a "ceiling"
of poor performance once they get into management, whilst their
technical skills wither and go out of date. These people would
prefer to specialise in some technical area (that is why a lot
of people go into the profession), but surprisingly in many (most)
UK companies this isn't allowed. A placement company I worked
for used the "motorola" approach whereby you can choose
to develop as a technical specialist or a manager or a mixture,
depending on personal preference. Motorola pay their technical
experts more than their senior management in some cases.
On the public perception and status of engineers, the debate
ran along the lines of the one in the previous topic. While one
respondent commented that if "you go into it purely for the
status, you're in it for the wrong reason", the debate focussed
on the public misunderstanding that engineers were "people
think that we fix cars or washing machines" and on whether
the title "engineer" should be restricted to professionally
qualified engineers. One change suggested was to give greater
status to "chartered engineers". On respondent pointed
out that upon becoming chartered there was "a massive change
in the way your employers view you, simply because they can now
charge you out at a higher rate as those few letters at the end
of your name demand".
A young engineer explained: There is clearly a problem
of perception of engineers and whilst some of this may be snobbery
there is clearly an issue with some companies calling some staff
engineers who aren't. It is however difficult to draw a line on
who is and who isn't an engineer. There is however a clearer definition
of Chartered Engineer (which includes people who don't have a
degree) but I suspect few people outside engineering understand
what being a Chartered Engineer means.
4. What or who inspired you to consider engineering as
a career?
Two themes emerged from the posts. First, schools and careers
guidance did not give sufficient encouragement to young people
to become engineers. Engineering was not taught as a subject in
schools and several commented on the absence of systematic arrangements
to encourage young people to consider it as a career. Careers
advice focussed on science careers rather than engineering. Second,
several respondents said that there had been "good"
at mathematics, physics and chemistry and enjoyed solving problems
but only became interested in engineering when an event-often
extra-curricular or external such as a visit or a television programme-focussed
their interest.
One respondent explained: I fell into engineering without
much thought really, which goes to show how much more publicity
engineering needs. I was studying the right kind of subjects and
had grandparents who were engineers and yet I'd never considered
a career in it until my school offered me a place on the Engineering
Education Scheme (EES) totally by chance because a friend had
turned down her place. I enjoyed the project we worked on so much
that I decided to study Civil Engineering at university.
I was never told about engineering by careers advisors or teachers
and I think this is due to a lack of education on their part.
In contradiction of the cited example, several respondents
commented that, in the absence information about engineering at
school, having a family member who was an engineer opened their
eyes to the potential of the profession. The family member provided
not only information but a role model. One respondent commented
on the need for a public face for engineering to do what Jamie
Oliver had done for Cooking and Simon Schama for History. The
other problem was that lack of knowledge about the disciplines
within engineering. Even among engineers themselves there was
ignorance of what, for example, a chemical engineer did.
The way best way to tackle these problems was better careers
information and demonstrations of what engineering. One respondent
suggested approaching local firms for a placement, which had the
added benefit of practical experience when applying for courses.
Several respondents made the point that that they had a predisposition
towards practical activities-taking things apart to see how they
worked or building machines or computers-and they once they got
some hands-on experience they found their metier.
A young engineer explained: I don't think there's actually
enough awareness of what engineering is, a lot of people seem
to think it's mechanics (as in fixing cars) for some strange reason.
Most people only ever hear about the architects and know little
about the fact that engineers are the ones that make it possible.
I first heard about engineering when I did work experience in
an architect's office, and Civil Engineering has been the career
path I've moved towards ever since.
I was also lucky that I had a talk back at Secondary School
by the WiTEC [Women in Science, Engineering and Technology], they
inspired me to do something which was away from what traditional
Chinese families consider as a profession (with doctors, bankers
and lawyers being the most common). During the talk they emphasised
the fact that everything we see and use has been engineered. From
bus networks that we take in the mornings to PCs we use in the
classroom, they have all been brought about by engineering in
one form or another.
There definitely needs to be more promotion about engineering
as a career path to children at a younger age. Teenagers tend
to be quite inquisitive, and if you tell them how clever some
of the solutions that engineers have come up with are, they'll
be intrigued.
January 2009
| 
